From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Les <nagylzs(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Index on (fixed size) bytea value |
Date: | 2023-06-20 06:50:58 |
Message-ID: | 335bca9eaf98a6865c8bfd8fc54b09caa055c7bf.camel@cybertec.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, 2023-06-20 at 08:13 +0200, Les wrote:
> I'm aware of the TOAST, and how it works. I was referring to it ("I think that it should
> be as large as possible, without hitting the toast. ") I have designed a separate "block"
> table specifically to avoid storing binary data in the TOAST. So my plan is not going to
> involve out-of-band storage.
>
> Just to make this very clear: a record in the block table would store a block, not the
> whole file. My question is to finding the optimal block size (without hitting the toast),
> and finding the optimal hash algorithm for block de-duplication.
Then you would ALTER the column and SET STORAGE MAIN, so that it does not ever use TOAST.
The size limit for a row would then be 8kB minus page header minus row header, which
should be somewhere in the vicinity of 8140 bytes.
If you want your block size to be a power of two, the limit would be 4kB, which would waste
almost half your storage space.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Les | 2023-06-20 07:18:31 | Re: Index on (fixed size) bytea value |
Previous Message | Les | 2023-06-20 06:13:07 | Re: Index on (fixed size) bytea value |